*These figures are calculated by adding together the revenue per person per month at the price point x the number of respondents willing to pay at the relevant price point and at higher prices points x 635 (the sample of 406 people was just over 1/635th of the total audience of unique users)

The resultant drop in page impressions if we did charge would doubtless have a huge impact on advertising revenues, and the loss even in terms of dreaded CPM could offset the gains. However, it’s food for thought to consider that at only a fraction of our current audience we could comfortably cover the current wage bill for one dedicated member of editorial staff at the Echo.

Plus, with 95% of our current audience to aim for as a target for garnering extra subscriptions, is there a case for flicking the switch now and charging a fee for what we currently give away for free?

I guess the major caveat here is respondents did not specify the type of news content they would pay for. ‘News content’ could cover everything from live video feeds of major international events produced by the BBC to three-paragraph snooker updates from our local Green Baize club.

So the question remains, do we serve up the content people want and are willing to pay for? I’d say ‘yes’, but I would, wouldn’t I?

It’s possible free sites will spring up, but bear in mind the only reason the website I work for exists is because it’s attached to a newspaper staffed with a team of reporters, subs, snappers etc. Quality news gathering is an expensive business, which would probably provide a barrier to entry for bedroom start-ups and bigger outfits would struggle to employ enough people to cover many local markets in the depth we can.

I have to say I’m not necessarily in favour of charging for content, but I think these figures beg the question of whether it’s worth a try. We certainly aren’t monetising the web through ads in my little corner of the world wide web…